tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News January 16, 2012 2:00am-3:00am EST
captioned by closed captioning services, inc. >> chris: i'm chris wallace. conservative christian leaders endorse rick santorum as they try to unite social conservatives behind one man. can any one stop mitt romney? we'll talk with a candidate who tied for first in iowa but lost steam in new hampshire. rick santorum on his strategy for a comeback as we continue our 2012 one on one series of interviews. be then, some of romney's rivals slam his business record as vulture capitalism. we'll have a debate over private equity between the head of the club for growth and rick tyler, part of the progingrich
super pac behind the toughest ads. there a controversial video derail peace talks with the taliban and who is behind a covert operation in iran that killed a nuclear scientist? we will ask our sunday panel how both incidents will affect the u.s. and we go on the trail all right now on "fox news sunday." >> chris: and hello again from fox news in washington. well, there has been a big development in the republican race for president. for months now, social conservatives have split their votes among several candidates, leaving a clear path for mitt romney to become the frontrunner. but at a summit of christian leaders in texas yesterday, a super majority voted to back rick santorum. this just six days before voters in south carolina go to the polls. joining us now you from myrtle beach is the former senator
from pennsylvania. welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thank you very much, chris. good to be with you. >> chris: senator, how big a deal is this? and especially what is the practical effect on your campaign with just as we say six days until the primary? >> well, it is a great -- it is a very big deal. the bottom line is that you had folks there representing a lot of different camps. a lot of people who came there to win the day for their candidate and it was a very divided group at the beginning. as they worked through it they came to an overwhelming consensus like 75% of the people there decided to support me. and i think they did so because they know that i'm the consistent conservative. i'm someone who is willing to stand up for all of the issues, not just the moral cultural issues but the economic issues and the moral crisis of this debt and explosion of government and willing to stand up against radical jihaddism and the things that are important to conservatives across the country and they saw me as someone who has the best chance of winning. i beat gingrich and perry in
iowa. beat them again in new hampshire and we are doing well, here. we feel good that with their is support we will get a network of grass roots leaders here lining up behind us and giving us that surge that we need coming down to the last week. >> chris: have they made any promises the ones who endorsed you you are giving you money and going out publicly and supporting you? >> i haven't talked to any of them. i talked to one person to be honest with you since that meeting and what i was told that individual members are going to go out and do things with either endorsements or contacting people here in the state and across the states to support us and to help our cause. and we certainly accept all endorsements, help, money, grass roots activity, anything they are willing to do to help we will be happy to take it. >> chris: the practical fact is you have been splitting the vote of social conservatives with gingrich and with perry. should they drop out of the
race so that the votes of the social conservatives can be united in supporting a candidate who supports their views? >> i am not going to tell anybody to get in or out of a race. that is their decision to make. we will go out and run the race as hard as we can. south carolina is going to have a big impact on this race but it is not going to be the final issue. there are a lot of states to come. we need to get this eventually down to a conservative alternative to mitt romney. and those two -- when we finally get matched up and we believe it will be us if when we get matched up if you look at the polls done in other states down the road, we match up very well and are ahead of governor romney in almost every one of those state polls. we feel like once the field narrows and we get it down to a two person race we have an excellent opportunity to win the race. >> chris: and i take your point you are not the asking them to drop out. as long as they stay in the race, however, perry and gingrich, doesn't have the practical effect of helping
romney and diminish the effect of social conservatives in trying to help pick the nominee? >> i don't think it is just social conservatives. it is all conservatives. a lot of conservatives have concerns about governor romney's record on the economy and romney care is a real scarlet letter here that we can't have a nominee that takes away the most important issue in this election which is an explosion in the federal government and roning the people's freedom on the federal level with obama care and romney care which was the predecessor to obama care just disqualifies him in his ability to go out and aggressively go after this top down approach to help. this is not just social conservatives. i'm hearing from conservatives across the board. economic, foreign policy. they are looking for someone with a strong consist record.denent track it would be helpful if everybody dropped out of the race, yes, then i would win. the idea is we will go through the process and people have the right to go out and make the case to the voters and then we will see what happens. >> chris: give than newt
gingrich is beating you right now, in the polls in south carolina, why should his supporters back you? why are you a truer conservative than newt gingrich? >> well, i just look at the -- at our leadership. when i was in the republican leadership in the united states senate, conservative organizations from national security to economic to social conservatives came to me to make sure that the conservative agenda was pushed in your leadership and made sure that those votes came to the floor of the united states senate. whether it was the nra or national restaurant association or national rifle association those folks came and understood we were the conservative voice in the leadership and taking it to the streets, if you will. if you look at congressman gingrich when was speaking three years in the speakership there was a conservative revolution because they were concerned he was no the promoting those ideas. when you look at one and their leadership ability and what they do inside the room when nobody else is watching we were the conservative who stood up
and fought for thosish throughs and newt was not and that is what we are looking at as a president. someone who can lead and is not atrade to take on the issues and put the tough conservative issues on the back burner. >> chris: let's talk about your record as a conservative, senator. when you were in the senate you voted against the national right to work law which would have allowed people to get jobs without having to join a union. for years you repeatedly supported the davis bacon act which requires government contractors to pay the prevailing wage. in both of those issues you sided with big labor, sir. >> yeah, i think if you look back at my track record i i had about a 9% big labor voting record. you picked out the two and you need to remember i was from the state of pennsylvania. the state of pennsylvania does not have a right to work law. the state legislature and our governor and for a long time had the rules in place that were inconsistent with right to work.
and i wasn't as a united states senator -- and i was representing the state of pennsylvania going do down and by federal vote change the law in the state. i believe the state has the right if they want to have a union dues requirement that the state should be able to do that. as a president i have a very different point of view. i already signed a letter and sent it to the national right to work that i would sign a national right to work bill because now i'm no longer representing that state. and by the way, the same thing with respect to davis bacon. my feeling was, again, representing that state which has a large segment of that -- of contractors that work under those provisions that i would protect that right within that. again it, as the president i would have a different view. but i did represent a constituency and one of the things that is important is to listen to the constituency and respect the rights of my state. >> how is that different than mitt romney who took some positions when he was the governor of mass and changed some of his positions since
then. >> if i was governor of the i would have worked to change the laws. i would have changed the laws within pennsylvania. i'm not going to have the federal government change the law for the state of pennsylvania. a different thing. you work within the people of your state to promote the ideals that you believe in but you don't have the federal government impose those on a state when the state has decided differently. >> chris: you are also coming under fire for your tax plan. you would cut the corporate tax rate to 17.5% for all industries except that you would cut it to zero for manufacturing. the conservative national review says this. the radical differences for between taxes for manufacturing and other activities would introduce perhaps the biggest and most damaging tax distortion in american history. it would also invite endless fraud. your response, sir? >> that is outrageous. the bottom line is the reason we have a different rate for taxes for manufacturing is
because manufacturers face a different playing field. the hotel that is here right now is not going to move to china. the jobs aren't going to be taken and gone and go to canada. the bottom line is that foreign competition that is in large part we are being uncompetitive because of high rates of taxation. because of government regulation and because of government policy again railly is making our manufacturing base uncompetitive with the rest of the world. the rest of our economy by and large is domestically based because it serves the domestic economy. manufacturing is different. it competes with international competition and particularly with countries that want to take those jobs into their countries. and so what i have done is look at where government can allow us to compete and if you look at the national association of manufacturers what they have said is that if you exclude labor costs and compare our costs of manufacturing in this country versus our nine top trading partners we are 20% more expensive.
there is no way that we are going be able to keep the jobs from a national security perspective because manufacturing is key to our security to be able to have products that are essential for our national security to be made here in america. but it is also key for wealth creation and particularly wealth creation for the blew collar workers in america. i disagree with those folks. we do need to have a different rate of tax to compete against the chinas and the mexicos. >> chris: the counter to that, the argument would be that you are picking winners and losers and you are using the tax code to establish an industrial policy. let me give you one other example of this, sir,, if i may. you have a plan as part of your tax plan you would triple the tax credit for children. the "wall street journal" editorial-page says this. mr. santorum is essentially agreeing with liberals who think the tax code should be used to pursue social and political goals and the
political tax foundation gives you plan a d plus, sir. >> you look at what is going on in europe today. what they have is a tax code just similar to actually worse than ours with respect to families and children. and guess what happened? they have a demographic winter going on. people aren't having children. why? because it is so expensive and government does nothing to help them. they are paying baby bonuses so people will have children. we have seen a dramatic increase. the child deduction and credit deduction used to be almost ten times what it is today. when the government had a policy that said we want human capital, we want children, we need and actually want children to be here in america and the government has a policy of helping and supporting families because children are the greatest resource we have. they are the greatest -- they are the natural resource that creates wealth in this country and if it wasn't for immigration our population would be declining. and one of the biggest reasons, chris, is the financial burden on families and the federal government over the years has
year-by-year by year decreased support for families and guess what is happening? year-by-year by year birth rates are going down. this is not social engineering. what is social eck nearing is the -- engineering is the policies of the last 30 years that robbed the family of the support they used to have in the tax code. >> chris: about a minute left and i want to get into one last issue with you. in the sect segment we will debate newt gingrich's attacks on mitt romney record as a businessman at bain capital. i know you say we shouldn't be attacking -- the republican party shouldn't be attacking free enterprise. the speaker now says that the super pac should correct its ads or take them down but the super pac says we are not going to do that until romney clears the record. here is the question for you, sir. i know that super pacs are legally independent. what does it say about a candidate if he can't get a legally independent super pac
that supports him to change its actions to do something different. for instance, do you think the red white and blue fund which supports you.org you think if you said to them i want you to take down an ad they would listen to you? >> i hope so. i hope anybody supporting my campaign would listen to what i have to say. i hope governor romney will have his pac take down his ad saying that i want felons to be able to vote. that is a lie. i voted for a provision that said if a felon serves his term and serves his parole and probation and then after that period of time he can be restored his voting rights which is exactly the law that is here in south carolina but we had a federal law for federal election. so governor romney should be saying to his pac take that ad down, it's false. it it gives the impression that i want people to be voting from jail and those are the kinds of things that candidates when they see the super pacs doing things whether it is newt gingrich or mitt romney they should stand up and say it is false and i repudiate that and they should take it down.
>> chris: and if the super pac ignores them? >> obviously governor romney doesn't have the kind of persuasion if he can't per situation his own people to do something how is he going to persuade the american public and democrats to get things done. >> chris: you say the same thing for newt gingrich? >> i say the same thing for newt gingrich. >> chris: i have to leave it there. thank you so much for joining us and we will see you down the campaign trail, up next, the big fight over mitt romney business record. is it fair game o
>> chris: well, that is is just that a taste of the film i king of bain which a progingrich super pac is running in south carolina. while the gingrich supporters say they are raising will gait mat wees about mitt romney's business record much of the conservative establishment has come down hard on the super pac and gingrich for attacking free enterprise. here to debate are rick tie her, senior -- rick tyler. and from florida, crist chocola, head of the conservative club for growth who has called the ads "disgusting." mr. tyler, speaker gingrich called on the superpac either to correct the inaccuracies or take them down and you said until mitt romney answers some questions you stand by the ads. question, why don't you do what the candidate you are supporting is asking you you to do? >> he said if there are inaccuracies in the ad we would adjust them. but only mitt romney can answer the question although i have
some evidence here which is the date he left bain. he claims to have left in august of 1999. his spokesperson said yesterday he left in august of '99. i have before me five separate sec filings and many more that he was the c.e.o. and president as late as may 10, 2001. that would put all of the questions at the time he said he wasn't at bain capital. >> chris: let me put up with his campaign said. this is the issue about the fact he left in 1999 to run the salt lake city olympic games. at that time, 1999 he gave up all management control and operational responsibility over the firm and its investments. now, you have the documents but why isn't that statement that he gave up management control and operational responsibility why isn't it good enough for you? >> you can't have an sec filing in which he is the signatory which says that he is the sole
share holder and has. >> ddi is one of the companies that is under attack this that he say is false. he was the sole -- he was in charge of bain capital as late as may 10, 2001. so either you filed a false sec report which i doubt he did or he is telling the voters something that is not true. >> chris: bottom line if he he stands by the statement his campaign made but doesn't answer your specific questions. >> then we stand by the film. >> chris: and you will keep running the film. >> absolutely. glen kessler never challenged any of ads. >> the fact checker for the washington post. >> he also fact checks hyperbole. we never made a statement how many homes mitt romney owns. one woman. >> chris: she says in the film it is 13 homes. >> i think it was 15. are we going to back check hyperbole. we didn't include that in the ad. >> chris: it is in the film that you are also running.
>> yes. >> chris: as i said, you are on the record as calling the bain attack by the super pac and gingrich disgusting. you also use the words economically ignore rant class warfare. what is the problem? >> well, the problem is that rick and the future is his superpac are presenting the same vision of free market capitalism that people like michael moore and president obama offer. they take a few facts, snippets of information that they distort, take it out of context and reach the conclusion it is all like this. free american capitalism is nothing more than a bunch of looting rich guys that get rich at the expense of others. it is a sad commentary. it is inaccurate. the reality is that free market capitalism has done more for the soul of the human race than any other system. and it has created the highest standard of living and that is the message that every candidate presidential candidate on the republican side should be giving. not this distorted view that is
inaccurate. it has been universally discredited and i think that rick really needs to take a look when it has been criticized by the candidate he is trying to help, the person that is paying for the ad, has distanced himself injuries the people in the film said it is misleading and taken out of context. there is no reason or excuse to continue with this. >> chris: i will give you an opportunity to respond but i want to ask you a question in that context. now, you and speaker gingrich are saying well, we are just asking for mr. romney to clear up the record. but the fact is over the last week you have done a lot more than say just clear up the record. you called him a "vulture capitalist." and here is what newt gingrich said this week. let's watch. >> i do draw a distinction between looting a company, leaving behind broken families and broken neighborhoods and leaving behind a factory that should be there. >> chris: i understand that some of bain's inch vestments went under.
what is your evidence they were looting companies. >> gsi steel in south carolina. they shorted the pension fund. the federal government had to bail them out yet bain capital made $17 million on the deal. i have no argument with capitalism. vultures by the way are good. >> chris: that was a compliment, calling him a vulture capitalist. >> he is trying to claim he is creating jobs when in fact, bain, 30% of their companies went out of business and in business there is winners and losers but with bain there is sometimes you win and sometimes you win. they made money on 90% of their deals. that is good. if he were running on the idea that elect me for president because i return a great investment for my investors i would have no dispute with him. he is running because he says is a job creator. he was the guy going in and dis mantling companies and destroying jobs. i don't have a beef with that. don't tell meow are one thing and not another. all i'm disputing is his claim
for jobs and all of a sudden the pillars of capitalism are at risk. it is ridiculous. >> chris: have private equity companies been good or bad for the economy and in your experience is bain capital an outlyer? some kind of bad actor in the markets? >> i do have personal experience with private equity. my family's business was purchased by a private equity firm. i ran that company for seven years in partnership with the private equity sponsors. we grew the company and ultimately sold that company. today it is thriving and growing. my experience is much more typical of the private equity entity than the distorted view that you rick offers. he is not examining mitt romney's record. he is offer fiction. go to club for growth.org and look at the white paper we wrote about mitt romney but his
experience at bain isn't one of those concerns. he is indicting free market capitalism and the pr private equity business unfairly with distort snippets of information. his own candidate suggests that it is inaccurate. i think he has to take a look at the real record of mitt romney which there are things to be concerned about and he should focus on those. >> chris: one of the arguments is that they are just and we have heard this, they are fiction and inaccuracies in the movie you are running. let's take one example from the film unimac which was a company in florida that made washing machines. the first big example you use. one of four. let's watch what you say in the film. >> if they would have left us alone as unimac i think they would still be running around now as unimac and still have probably more than 500 employees by now.
>> romney and bain up ended the company and gutted the workforce. now, they were ready to make a handsome profit. >> chris: mr. tyler, here is the problem with that account of what happened at unimac and we put up a timeline. let's show it close. bain bought the company in 1998. romney left bain in 1999. you say maybe a little later. bain sold the company in 2004. it was the new owners, the new owners the, a canadian pension fund that shut down the florida plant those folks are talking about in 2005. mitt romney had absolutely nothing to do with the shutting down of unimac. >> if this document right here shows that mitt romney was part of bain as late as 2001 when said he left in 1999. >> chris: they didn't sell is until 2004. >> the workers by the way, i reviewed the entire transcript of their interview. they were clearly talking about bain was cheapening the quality, gutting the work
force. but this is part of a pattern. >> chris: that is not what they say, sir. in fact, the couple that you showed and forgive me, sir,, the couple you showed tommy and tracy jones say they got a 30% raise while bain owned the plant and they say they were talking about the people who four years later shut down the plant. they were not talking about mitt romney. they also say they were given money to do the interview. re--d we will be glass to glad to release the entire transcript of their interview. release the entire video of the film. i determined they were talking about bain. >> chris: how can they be talking about bain when bain sold the plant. >> they said i wish that bain had left us alone back in the early '90s and they would be running as unimax. what romney and bain did is go in and load companies with debt and take management fees so they couldn't survive in the long-term. if they went out of business in 2005 it is because they
couldn't survive. >> chris: no, the new owners moved the plant and the business is still running. they move it from florida to wisconsin. >> unimac is a typical example like usi steel. chris did not watch our movie. it does to the say that capitalism is bad. it says it is good. the whole argument against capitalism is baloney. >> chris: we have a couple of minutes left. are you aware that newt gingrich was the member of a board of advisors of another private equity firm between '99 and 2001? >> i have met teddy forsman and he is a wonderful individual. i know the firm well. a friend of my worked there for years. i don't have a problem with private equity firms. >> chris: exactly during the time that newt gingrich was there did you know that forsman little invested billions of dollars in two telecommunications firms that both went bankrupt and that forsman little was sued by publ employees unions,
pension funds rather in connecticut? >> and i'm sure if teddy forsman ran for president that would be an issue. the issue is what romney was saying. >> chris: why was it okay for newt gingrich to be a part of forsman little? >> i don't have a beef with private equity firms. i have a beef with mitt romney's record on life, on marriage, on jobs and taxes. why should is be surprising and chris chocola of all people should want to know what his record is with jobs. >> chris: do you think it as legitimate issue that newt gingrich was a member of a private investment firm that invested in companies that went bankrupt and he was sued by the connecticut public workers fund? >> this is politics. people will bring up lots of issues and try to connect the dots. this is about jobs in south carolina. people ought to know he is not a job creator. >> chris: did you know if the most recent financial disclosure form mr. gingrich indicates he still has money invested in forsman? >> and i hope that he makes a hand some profit but this isn't
about that. >> chris: and you don't see a contradiction between the fact that -- >> no, i don't. >> chris: between the fact that newt gingrich is invested in forsman buyout funds and worked for and was paid by forsman and you are sitting here criticizing what mitt romney did at bain? >> i'm criticizing what mitt romney's utter ranses are. if it mit said i helped create a hundred million jobs i could back that up. while he was speaker they did create 11 million jobs. paid off $405 billion worth of death. balanced the budget and reformed welfarethat is a record to run on. mitt romney wants you to know two things. newt's record -- he wants you to not know two things. newt's record and his record. >> i don't know how many jobs bain created but if they created one job they created more sustainable jobs to grow the economy than the government does. rick tyler bought this film. he didn't make it. he didn't do his homework.
he didn't determine the veracity of it. he continues to offer it even though it has been universally discredited. not an examination of mitt romney's record. it is simply fiction and that is the bottom line. >> chris: we have to leave it there. thank you both for joining us. we'll see how this plays out in south carolina. we want to note we invited speaker gingrich to come on the program today. he turned down our invitation. up next, the republican race heads south and the rest of the field tries to find some way to slow mitt romney's momentum. we will break it down with our sunday panel, when we come right back. i wouldn't do that. pay the check? no, i wouldn't use that single miles credit card. hey, aren't you... shhh. i'm researchg a role. today's special... the capital one venture card. you earn double miles on every purchase. impressive. chalk is a lost medium. if you're not earning double miles... you're settling for half. was that really necessary? [ male announcer ] get the venture card at capitalone.com
it as very big deal and it was a very divided group at beginning but as they worked through it, they came to a consensus, overwhelming consensus. >> chris: rick santorum talking to us a few moments ago about the backing he got from a super majority of conservative christian leaders this weekend. it is time for our sunday group. brit hume, fox news senior political analyst. kirsten powers.
bill crystal and juan william. how significant do you think the endorsement was? there was a summit in houston this weekend there were supporter there's for santorum, gingrich, perry. on the third ballot by a margin of three to one they went tore santorum. how big a deal? >> i don't think endorsements by themselves are that big a deal. but it certainly can't hurt santorum. what santorum is up against is the problem that two of his fellow candidates are up against and that is that there are too many of them. if he wants to get to be the alternative candidate to mitt romney and turn this into a long struggle for the nomination. at least two of the other candidates have to get out. gingrich and perry in particular. ron paul may fade. but that is the big problem they face. and they can unite behind one person but the field is still crowded and gingrich in some ways is kind of an elephant in the corner of the room because he has national name recognition and people have heard of him and a great many people in this country believe
he is truly conservative and so on. he is an obstacle to santorum who could be a long-term ail torntive to mitt romney. >> he got 29% in iowa. 39% in new hampshire. both good numbers but you that meaps there are a lot of people who weren't voting for him. ron paul is clearly going to get his share of voters. seems to be around 20%. what are the chances you think that value voters unite around santorum or any of the other, quote, social conservatives. >> one of the problems. well, this is two questions. one are, are the voters going to listen to the social conservative leaders. that remains to be seen. the other thing is they are little late to the game. if they were going to do this they probably should have done it before iowa or right after iowa when santorum was sort of surging. i think that one of the things -- the reason i think perhaps they are not going to listen to them is what we saw in iowa and new hampshire is voters are only concerned about
the economy. there is no comparison. social issues are not even getting on the radar at all. and santorum is arguing that stop the bain attacks which are going after him on abortion and other issues but if they vote the same as they have been voting in iowa and new hampshire all they care about is the economy and romney wins on that. >> chris: does this have no impact, though? >> i don't know. that has been my refrain throughout the last few months. and everyone goes up and down wildly. i think it could help santorum a lot over the next week or south carolina conservatives could decide gingrich is the more plausible fighting alternative to romney or just splinter and romney could win with 30% and gingrich 25 and santorum 20 and paul 18 and then we go on to florida. the one thing i will say is this, as long as romney, he will not close out the race by getting 30 or 35%. good to win and if he gets 35% that will be impressive. but as long as you just said as one can plausibly say gee, 40,
45, 50% of the voters might ultimately unite behind a conservative, i think either santorum and or gingrich will stay in the race in florida and probably into march. i don't think this race is going to end this month. >> chris: juan? >> i think it as big deal that he got the evangelical support. i didn't anticipate it. it is late in the game. the question is whether it will have impact. but it was big for him because he was trailing newt gingrich and mitt romney in south carolina and all of the energy and momentum that he had coming out of iowa seemed to have dissipated. seemed to have gone away. the real question was whether he should have skipped new hampshire and gone directly to south carolina in order to take advantage of the fact that he has these social credentials, socially conservative credentials that could have played to that audience better than to a more moderate republican audience in new hampshire. turns out he spent some time in new hampshire, goes to south carolina and it just didn't look like it was having any
effect until the evangelical endorsement yesterday. >> chris: let's turn to the question on the attack of romney's business record at bain. at the beginning of the week, gingrich was as we saw in the tape earlier in the last segment accusing romney of looting companies. by the end of the week he was saying i want to question his record and clear up things and telling his superpac correct all of the inaccuracies in it. it gingrich trying to continue the attacks but distance himself from the superpacs to have it both ways or any sign having a backlash against him? >> i see some evidence there is backlash against him. a couple of polls out. one an online poll from reuters and ipsos which has gingrich falling back to 11 or 12%. i don't believe that poll is, correct. i think he is doing better than that. i think it is a sign that gingrich may have hurt himself
by this. let's remember this about this whole issue about the alternative to mitt romney and who gets to be that candidate. mitt romney does pretty well among conservatives. conservatives basically like him. there is a gallup poll, an interesting gallup poll out that has been out for several days that asks about acceptability and asks republicans and it broke them down into conservatives and liberals and moderates. mitt romney led the pack acceptable to 59% of conservatives. gingrich was second at about 50% and the rest were behind that. liberals and moderates he also did 59% and everybodies way behind him on that. the idea that you have a conservative element in the gop dead set against romney i think is a fall lacy and that as time goes on the momentum factor that comes from winning even by small margins is likely to build and a lot of conservatives are going to come in his direction and makes it harder for rick santorum and the others to do what they have to do. >> in the time we have left. let's look at this from the
democratic point of view. how effective do you think romney has been so far in blunting the attacks that he is some kind of vultur vulture whe learned is some kind of good thing today, it as compliment, he is a raider, a looter, how effective has he been in blunting that and poured concrete potent an -- how potent an issue does it remain if he goes forward against barack obama in the fall? >> i think he has been extremely ineffective. in the most recent interview where he talked about this is about class war fare and envy that is not a great comeback to this and he also said it in his speech in new hampshire talking about obama trying to divide us with envy or whatever. it is not about envy. it is about people losing jobs and he needs to be able to connect with that and come back with a better defense or explanation for these things because i do think while maybe it is not going to matter in south carolina, it remains to be seen, it is going to matter in a larger election.
>> chris: of course, in a general election mitt romney can run plenty of jobs about people who lost their jobs in the obama recession. they both to be able to tay tack on that issue. a don't versial new video could derail peace talks with the taliban. we will ask the panel about both foreign policy changes. stay tuned.
showing u.s. marines apparently desecrating the bodies of dead taliban soldiers in afghanistan. and we are back now with the panel. bill kristol, what do you make of the administration's condemnation? appropriate or over the top? >> over the top. i mean self-righteous posturing by the secretary of state and secretary of defense. four enlisted marines did something they shouldn't have done. they probably should get a nonjudicial battlefield punishment. >> chris: you are not saying in what the video supposedly shows is four marines you urinating n the bodies of corpses. >> and why the secretary of state and secretary of defense have to make a big evangelicals it than it is. of >> i suppose the argument is it is another abu ghraib and will show the callousness of u.s.
soldiers in the world. >> it is not clear that abu ghraib made that much difference ultimately in the arab world. i think wiebe blowing it up we helped cause that difference. and also it would have been nice if the secretary of defense could have said a few things about the 99% of marines and soldieriers who behaved inn eck emlary way. this ba at iton suffered a lot of deaths and wounded in the tough fighting. instead to go on tv and criticize our own troops i don't think this is a good thing. >> chris: let me come at this from a different angle. the taliban which i think we all would agree has a terrible record of brutal behavior including beheadings expressed outrage at the video. here is a comment from the spokesman for the taliban. it was despicable and unforgivable act. does the taliban have standing to lecture us on what is
despicable? >> we shouldn't be abiding by the taliban standards. we have our own standards as americans. clearly this was a despicable act. >> depickable? >> i think it was to desecrate the dead. >> we eliminate people with drone attacks. kill them. despicable? >> no, depends if -- >> they are the enemy. >> in a matter of war, killing people i'm afraid is part of the action. >> if you kill them that is fine. when they are dead and no longer around if you do something to their body that is worse. >> not worse. you make the judgment. >> you make the judgment. >> i said it was depickable. in my judgment uried nating on a dead person is despicable. >> and this is the one that conservatives are dragging out when liberals make criticisms of things like that. well, we kill people so therefore we can do anything to them. >> i didn't say that. >> the idea that it is
despicable. you can say it is despicable and you can kill people in war. it is conduct unbecoming an officer. >> i knew that. >> chris: brit, one of the reasons that the administration came out so forcefully is they are now trying to broker peace talks with the taliban and in fact they are even considering releasing five senior taliban leaders who are presently being held at guantanamo. and obviously they are concerned that the video could put a wrench in the talks. what do you think of the idea of the peace talks with the taliban? >> i have to -- you got to be suspicious of peace talks with the taliban. can you count on the taliban to abide by any agreement you would make with them? i doubt it. on top of that, you have to wonder about this administration with its seeming eagerness to diminish the military and to end these commitments because the base of the democratic party hates it. hates them. whether they want to enter into
peace talks because they think that is a way to get the solution and victory we want or because they want to get out. >> the fact is that everybody not just republicans, not just democrats but republicans also don't like involvement and think we been in afghanistan ten years for some questionable outcome. i think the larger point to get back to the incident is that there is a media front in wars these days and you do not want to give your opponents a recruiting tool. >> and the way to deal with the media front is to say uphold standards. these were in lifted men and they will be disciplined in the normal course of things and we do not need to posture. >> chris: we got that. i want to get to the question of the peace talks. a good idea or a bad idea? >> if they were genuine peace talks which would leave a decent government in afghanistan it is a bad idea. if it was an excuse to get out like the peace corps talks with respect to vietnam in 1972 it
is a bad idea. we are fighting the war there. we made a huge success over the last year and a half and now you for to us have the attitude as juan correctly says which i think is the attitude of the administration, we have to get out of there, it has been too long. a stairiblterrible thing to dod terrible message to send. >> chris: an iranian scientist was killed when a hit team put a magnetic bomb on his car in the middle of rush hour and it killed him. the iranians accused the u.s. doing it.tinians oof explosion at an iranian missile base. are we or are the israelis, is someone waging a covert war against the iranians? >> i think smart people see patterns and i think there is a clear pattern here. something is going on.
somebody is at work. the fact that the iranians have been indifferent to international condemnation of the idea that they are developing this nuclear weaponry would make it seem all the more urgent that somebody try to stop them. unfortunately, from what i have been able to discern, everybody says this is not going to stop them. may slow them down but inevitably they will get the nuclear weapon. whoever is doing this is doing a good deed. the question is whether or not it will have the result which would be to stop it. apparently that is not going to have that result. >> chris: what do you think are the chances that the covert actions combined with what seems to be a newly invigorated sanctions regime, maybe sanctioning the central bank, maybe the europeans agreeing not to embargo oil from -- imported oil from iran, what are the chances you think that they can stop iran's nuclear program without an all out military attack? >> stop is a big word.
they can set it back and interfere with it and obstruct it and i think that on balance is a very good thing. >> chris: kirsten? >> the question really is, is it effective. obviously if it was effective i agree. there has been a lot of criticism from the left i actually don't agree with they claim this is terrorism. you know, but, of course, this isn't -- i don't see this as terrorism because, of course, we are trying to stop someone from making an attack versus attacking somebody just to create terror which are two completely different things. the issue is just like juan said, will this stop anything. we don't -- it is not clear if this isn't just, you know, taking out a couple of people but they will continue with the program. >> chris: we have to leave it there. thank you panel. see you all next week. check out panel plus where the group picks right up with the discussion on our website fox news sunday .com. we will post the video before
noon eastern time. up next, from new hampshire to south carolina, we go on the trail. [ male announcer ] when do you take 5-hour energy? when i'm on the night shift. when they have more energy than i do. when i don't feel like working out. when there isn't enough of me to go around. ♪ when i have school. and work. every morning. it's faster and easier than coffee. every afternoon when that 2:30 feeling hits. -every day. -every day. every day is a 5-hour energy day. [ male announcer ] 5-hour energy. every day.
south carolina. as we found out the weather and the rhetoric are much hotter there than the trail. >> the president has run out of ideas. now, he is running out of excuses. >> certainly clear cut victory but we're nibbling at his heels. >> i say third displace a ticket to ride, ladies and gentlemen. >> i think the record of my experience at bain is pretty well in the open. >> i understand the difference between venture capital and vulture capitalism. >> people say he was wearing a sweater vest and it took a life of its own. they gave me this power. when you are sitting at 2% of
the polls any recognition is a good thing. >> who were you thinking about? >> flying babies. >> south carolina pick presidents. that is what y'all are going to be doing. >> it's a wide open race. i trust the people will do their jobs. >> i will be the republican nominee so you can you laterally change history. >> chris: we'll see how it all plays out when they vote in south carolina next saturday. before that, be sure to tune in monday night for our gop presidential debate in myrtle beach. it's sponsored by fox news and juan williams will be one of questioners. have a great week and we'll see you next fox news sunday.